If you bring Iverson forward into this era playing alongside high usage of the 3 point line, higher pace and most importantly great floor spacing big men like Horford and K.O. he would produce much better shooting numbers and TS%. Iverson would also be coached away from high usage of the mid range game which would benefit his TS% a lot.
If you send I.T. back into the Iverson era playing alongside lane clogging big men, slower pace and much poorer use of the 3 point line I.T.'s Shooting numbers and TS% would drop dramatically. His access to the hoop would be much more restricted and he could be more aggressively defended on the perimeter because of all the protection defenses had in the paint.
It is really hard to say who is better when one player (I.T.) is playing under much closer to ideal conditions to suit his game and the other (Iverson) was playing under what I would consider extremely poor conditions for most if not all of his best years.
A.I also played in the hand-check and pre-illegal defense era. Bigs can camp in the paint as long as they want.
Here's the major arguments I've now seen in favor of Iverson.
#1 - Increased minutes lowers efficiency: The argument is that Iverson was less efficient because he played so many minutes.
Is LarBrd33 convinced?: No. During Iverson's era, stars playing 39+ minutes was the norm. During Iverson's MVP season, there were 22 players who averaged at least 39 minutes. These days, the most any player plays is 37.4. Even a high usage star like Westbrook averages less than 35 minutes per game. Despite the increased minutes during Iverson's era, other players weren't as dramatically inefficient as he was. For instance, Michael Finley also averaged 42 minutes that season, but shot 46% from the field and 35% from three compared to Iversons' 42%/32%. In-fact, of the 13 players who averaged at least 40 minutes per game that season, only our very own Antoine Walker (41%) and Jerry Stackhouse (40%) shot lower percentages. Iverson was just flat-out inefficient. He took difficult shots and was never a good three point shooter. Thomas takes difficult shots too, but makes them at a higher rate.
#2 - Iverson lead a team to the finals: The argument is that because Iverson lead a team to the NBA finals, this somehow proves he's a better offensive player.
Is LarBrd33 Convinced?: No. The "Leastern Conference" was laughably bad during that era. Even our Walker/Pierce combo almost snuck into the Finals with less than 50 wins during that era. Jason Kidd and a mediocre Nets team made the Finals twice during that era. Whoever made the Finals was just fodder for the select Western Conference beasts. It was also arguably one of the worst eras talent-wise in the NBA. I don't give a [dang] that Iverson made the finals or won a game. The East sucked and their starting center (Dikembe) was Defensive Player of the Year. They won 56 games and got beat in 5 by the Lakers. The question is, if you stuck Thomas on that Philly team with Dikembe manning the middle, would they still have been able to make the Finals and win a single game? I'm not convinced he couldn't.
#3 - He scored more points - The argument is that because Iverson scored more points he was a better offensive player.
Is LarBrd33 convinced?: Obviously not. More minutes + more shots = more points. If you give Thomas 8 more minutes per game and 6 more shots per game, I'm supremely confident he'd average Iverson-esque 30+ points per game. He's already averaging 28. I'd also argue Iverson got a pass playing in the era he did. These days in the social media/blogosphere era, players like him are torn apart and hyperscrutnized for their lack of efficiency and ballhoggery. The best comp I can find for Iverson is Kemba Walker (before his miraculous leap in efficiency this season). Compare Iverson's 2003-04 season when he averaged 26.4 points with .387/.286/.745 shooting to Kemba Walker's ridiculed 2014-15 season in which he avearged 17.3 points with Iverson-esque .385/.304/.827 shooting percentages. Difference is, "ball-hog" Kemba walker only averaged 34 minutes and 15.8 shots per night. Whereas, "King Ball-Hog" Iverson was allowed to 42.5 minutes per game and 23.4 shots. I just don't see that happening in this era without daily articles about how garbage Iverson's shooting is.
#4 - Iverson had a weaker supporting cast: The premise is that because Iverson played with garbage teammates, his efficiency dropped
Is LarBrd33 convinced?: Normally, I'd be totally sold on this. I'm a big supporter in the idea that better teammates increases efficiency. In-fact, just this week I went on a rant about how Horford's addition has allowed the shooting efficiency of Crowder, Bradley and Thomas to skyrocket. So there's something there. Here's where I think the argument loses me, though... Thomas' career shooting percentages are better than Iversons. Thomas played on some really garbage teams before arriving in Boston. The laughably bad Kings teams won less than 30 games and yet Thomas still shot higher percentages than Iverson. Likewise for the below .500 Suns team that Thomas played on. And it's important to note that Thomas spent a large chunk of his time sharing court with NBA-reserves as "instant offense off the bench'... so despite sharing the court with back-ups, Thomas still shot higher percentages coming off the bench for the Suns and his early stint in Boston. That suggests that even with garbage surrounding him, Thomas was still more efficient than Iverson sharing the court with his starting lineup. Thomas sharing the court with quality players who make people better is relatively new. He's been more efficient than Iverson in literally every situation he's played in.
#5 - Modern Defenses/Hand Check rules would allow Iverson to dominate in this era: The argument is that if Thomas would struggle mightly scoring in the hand check era and Iverson would have a field day in 2017.
Is LarBrd33 Convinced?: This is perhaps the most compelling of all the arguments. It's widely believed that the evolution of the game has made it dramatically easier for smaller players to score and it's hard to argue against that as we see a rise in point guards. I'm on the fence on this one, though. The counter is that modern defenses are dramatically more advanced that the ones during the late 90s. For instance, in an article I read comparing Jordan and LeBron and whether they would dominate in swapped eras, they point out just how much help defense star players have to deal with in 2017. These screen shots highlighted the difference:
Image 1: Jordan backing down 1-on-1 with the entire half of the court wide open with defenders focused on their man
Image 2: LeBron backing down 1-on-1 in the modern era, except he has 3 guys breathing down his neck and all 5 defenders with eyes on him
All that said, there's probably something to be said to the defenses making Iverson's progress towards the hoop more difficult. But my question still stands... If you stuck Thomas on those Philly teams, cranked his minutes up to 43, gave him 25-28 shots per night, how successful would he be? His points undoubtedly would increase. Maybe his efficiency drops, but would it drop lower than Iversons? On the flip side, take prime Iverson, stick him on this 2017 Celtic team, drop his minutes to 34, drop his shot attempts to 19... would he be shooting higher percentages than Thomas is now?
I remain unconvinced. Say what you want about defenses, increased workload, supporting talent, etc - At the end of the day, I still have an impression of Thomas as a superior shooter to Iverson and a better finisher at the hoop. They have similar style games and both had their size working against them. I still don't know what it is about Iverson's offensive game that made him better. I think he just played in a sacred pre-blog era where players could get away with deeply flawed games without facing intense scrutiny. He was undeniably fun to watch and many fans grew up watching him. It's the same reason I'd be reluctant to admit Kevin Durant and prime Dirk,
just in terms of pure shooting, might be superior to Larry Bird. You make that argument and I'll instantly highlight Bird was vastly superior all-around and whine about modern defenses and how much better Bird could have been with modern fitness.
I still think Thomas is better offensively than Iverson was.
Topic: Convince me Iverson was better than Isaiah J. Thomas on offense. (Read 8969 times)